<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (1) TMI 224 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764162</link>
    <description>A Special Economic Zone co-developer is entitled to refund of service tax paid on services used for authorised operations, because the exemption under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is substantive and has overriding effect. The refund notifications operate only as a procedural mechanism and cannot curtail the statutory benefit where the services were received for authorised SEZ operations. Procedural objections and technical defects in the refund claim do not defeat the exemption. The refund also cannot be denied merely because the department disputes the taxability of the service in the hands of the provider, especially where service tax was actually charged and collected from the recipient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2025 08:44:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=786422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 224 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764162</link>
      <description>A Special Economic Zone co-developer is entitled to refund of service tax paid on services used for authorised operations, because the exemption under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is substantive and has overriding effect. The refund notifications operate only as a procedural mechanism and cannot curtail the statutory benefit where the services were received for authorised SEZ operations. Procedural objections and technical defects in the refund claim do not defeat the exemption. The refund also cannot be denied merely because the department disputes the taxability of the service in the hands of the provider, especially where service tax was actually charged and collected from the recipient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>